Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Term:

Settings

Beginner Intermediate Advanced No DefinitionsDefinition Life:

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Posted on 8 December 2012 by Andy Skuce

The previous article in this series looked at the recent discovery of significant releases of fossil methane through the thawing permafrost in Alaska. In this second instalment we will look at the potential of the rest of the Arctic to produce subcap methane, and will compare the size of these seeps to other global methane-producing mechanisms.

Pan-Arctic extrapolation

Much of the Arctic is underlain by sedimentary basins (Figure 1) that have potential to generate fossil methane gas. Onshore areas that are both gas- and permafrost-prone include Northern Alaska, Canada (Mackenzie Delta and Arctic Islands), Svalbard and Western Siberia.

In the Mackenzie Delta of Arctic Canada, for example, large gas seeps have been observed in small lakes in the delta close to large discovered gas fields. These seeps have isotope and chemistry signatures similar to local deep gas fields and to the Mallik gas hydrate accumulation, which contain fossil, thermogenic methane. Permafrost is up to 500 metres thick in this area but oil industry seismic reflection data reveal the presence of what may be gas conduits through the permafrost, from the deeper fossil gas accumulations (personal communication from the Geological Survey of Canada). It seems highly probable that similar situations will exist elsewhere in the Arctic, especially, in Siberia. Cramer and Franke (2006) show examples of gas conduits, some of them through permafrost, in the Laptev Sea (see also part four of this series, for more discussion).

Figure 1. (Above) USGS assessment of Arctic sedimentary basins with potential for gas. The darkest shades of red indicate the areas with the most potential. Grey areas are not assessed and white areas have only low prospectivity; from Gautier et al. (2009). Compare this map, rotated and rescaled with a map of Arctic permafrost, from Schuur et al (2008) below. Click here for big.

Extrapolating over the entire Arctic from their observations in Alaska , Walter Anthony and her colleagues estimate that subcap seeps (seeps of fossil, thermogenic methane through discontinuous permafrost) may be currently emitting as much as 2 Tg (one Teragram = one billion kilograms or one million tonnes) of methane per year. This compares to an estimated seepage of 3-4 Tg per year (Figure 2) for the rest of the world from surface seeps (excepting mud volcanoes). In Alaska, the smaller but more numerous superficial seeps currently produce about three times as much gas as the Alaskan subcap seeps.

The big question, of course, is to what extent the observed current rate of seepage is due to processes that have been going on through the past 10,000 years and how much and how quickly the subcap seepage will increase as the Arctic continues to warm. WA12 does not provide any quantitative answers to this. The supplementary information states:

A large, but transient expulsion of subcap methane is expected to increase surface carbon cycling with implications for greenhouse gas feedbacks to climate warming in a future scenario of widespread permafrost thaw and wastage of glaciers and ice sheets. The magnitude and timing of this emission scenario is unconstrained due to large uncertainties in estimating future rates of cryosphere degradation, hydrocarbon reservoir response, and potential methane oxidation.

In other words, we don’t yet know how much or how soon the release of trapped fossil methane will increase as the permafrost cap is breached as a result of climate change. In the far-distant future, after all the permafrost has been degraded, WA12 expects there to be long-term geological gas seepage at a rate of about 11 Tg per year from the entire Arctic, which would double the amount of seepage seen elsewhere on land from sedimentary basins. As the permafrost cap degrades and is perforated, we might well expect to see short-term flow rates much higher than this. We shall speculate on this in part four of this series.

Global perspective

Figure 2. From Etiope (2012), comparing global natural geological and biochemical sources of methane. The dashed arrows above the seeps and microseeps represent estimates of increases in seep rates in a far-distant future, after the melting of the permafrost and release of the subcap methane. During the melting of the permafrost on century scales there may be a faster transient release of pent-up subcap fossil methane but this has not yet been quantified. Units are Tg (million tonnes) of methane per year.

Figure 2 shows the very large natural sources of biochemical methane in relation to estimates of emissions of geological methane. Anthropogenic sources of methane are not shown in this diagram and are roughly as large as the natural biochemical sources. The natural and man-made emissions of methane are approximately balanced by chemical reactions in the atmosphere that remove methane and by methane-consuming microbes in soils. There is a comprehensive review of natural sources of methane prepared by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Because they are relatively small, geological seeps are often neglected in articles on sources of atmospheric methane (e.g., Wikipedia and the IPCC TAR). Recently, however, understanding natural seeps of methane has become important in determining baselines in areas where unconventional gas production (fracking) is contemplated, such as in New York State.

The largest sources of emission of geological methane are the human-mediated fugitive emissions associated with fossil-fuel energy production, which amount to about 100 Tg CH4 per year, eclipsing all of the natural geological emissions. Such leaks come from all stages of natural gas production and transportation: from deliberate venting; from wellheads and poorly-cemented wells; and from leaky pipelines and storage containers. (See also this link, which estimates sources of methane emissions from many human activities in the USA.) These emissions have decreased over recent decades, but they may be starting to rise again; as I wrote in a previous SkS article:

A recent paper in Nature by Simpson et al (2012) (paywalled but see also the article in Climate Central) linked observed declines in atmospheric ethane to reduced fugitive emissions of methane (and associated ethane) from oil and gas operations. Simpson and her colleagues estimate that this may have reduced methane emissions by 10-21 Tg/yr (million tonnes per year), and that this could account for 30-70% of the total decline in methane emissions since 1984. If true, this would be the only climate mitigation action ever to have shown results detectable at the Mauna Loa Observatory. On the other hand, atmospheric methane concentrations have recently started to climb again, perhaps due to recent increased rates of shale gas drilling.

A 2012 paper by O'Sullivan and Paltsev, on the other hand, suggests that methane emissions from US shale gas wells, once flaring and reduced-emission completions are taken into consideration, may be small (~4%) in relation to overall fugitive emissions from the US gas industry. They estimate that, in 2010, emissions from shale gas operations in the USA amounted to 0.2 Tg of methane.

The significance of subcap fossil methane emissions lies not so much in their current rates, nor even in the amount that they are likely to become in a post-permafrost world, but rather in the transient rate that will occur as the big Arctic thaw unfolds. I will speculate on this in part four, but before that, in the next part of this series I will look at potential methane releases resulting from the retreat of glaciers and ice sheets.

Comments

human-mediated fugitive emissions associated with fossil-fuel energy production ... amount to about 100 Tg CH4 per year

Cheerful thought.

I wonder how much of this comes from fracking and gas production and how much from oil production? My guess would be that gas would be by far the greatest source, giving little comfort to areas currently under gas exploration licences here in Australia and around the globe. What percentage of gas is lost to fugitive emissions, anyone know?

I have a feeling that recent 2012 reduction in US CO2 emissions (sadly more than offset by increases in the rest of the world, China, India), if coming from from a large switch from coal-based to gas-based fuels, may be misguided, if said gas comes from fracking. Fracking leaks CH4 and I'm even not sure if we can quantify the amount of leakage (surely the recent CH4 increase must be coming from those, let's hope they are not from permafrost melt) so I'm not that positive about those emission reductions. Needless to say the environmental destruction of fracking which is OT here.

I think burning coal through high efficiency gasification process might be lesser evil rather than gasifying it "in situ" through fracking. Hansen says we must leave coal in place, deniers may say "we are not exploiting coal, just gas through fracking" but they de facto exploit coal, even further, they are destroying the emvironment in the process.

You are probably correct that most fugitive methane comes from gas production (and also gas storage and transportation), at least that's what the EPA says for US sources. Note that the numbers in the EPA table are CO2 equivalents not the weight of methane, so they need to be divided by 21 [edited] to compare them to the numbers mentioned in the article.

Significant amounts of methane comes from oil and (as Phil Scadden said) coal production, as well. I have a hunch that oil production in countries that have less stringent engineering and regulatory standards that the US quite likely vents proportionally more methane than the US, but I don't have a reference for that.

There's also a very comprehensive EPA report on natural sources of methane, although it does seem (to me) to downplay permafrost methane emissions, at least in the light of recent permafrost research.

My opinion is that the leakage and other environmental consequences of fracking have been exaggerated by some environmental activists. There are leaks and other negative consequences from fracking, of course, but many of these problems can be mitigated with stringent regulation. I think that natural gas, shale gas included, can be beneficial in reducing GHG emissions in the short term, especially if it displaces much more damaging coal . However, most of the gas is going to have to stay in the ground if we want to avoid a climate catastrophe, so I am opposed to new fossil fuel developments of any kind so long as they don't pay their way through a carbon tax and compensation for their other environmental impacts.

Doug H
A number of Papers have been published recently on fugitive emissions of natural gas, variously estimating them at between 2%-5% of total production. There are indications in Australia that fracking may result in much higher emissions, though it is unclear if these are from the ground above the fracked area or the well head area.

Andy S notes that … leakage and other environmental consequences of fracking have been exaggerated …
However, preliminary (non peer reviewed) research undertaken by the Southern Cross University in Queensland indicates that methane concentration in the atmosphere above areas where fracking gas mining has occurred are around 3 times higher than the global average. http://www.istockanalyst.com/business/news/6155419/fracking-blamed-for-methane-releases

As pointed out by scaddenp significant venting of methane also occurs during coal mining. With introduction of the carbon tax, it is expected that several of the most “gaseous” mines in Australia will find it is no longer economic to continue operating and will close.

Agnostic, I acknowledge that the issue of fugitive emissions from shale-gas operations is not yet settled and that in some instances there may well be significant gas leaks.

As far as I can tell, contra to your link, the apparently leaky gas fields in Queensland are coal-bed methane fields, which are typically shallower than shale gas fields and are not artificially fracked. Not that the climate system cares where the methane comes from...

One source of GHG emissions from some shale-gas operations that is incontrovertible is the deliberate venting of carbon dioxide from some fields after it has been separated out from the produced methane to make it saleable. For example, in some shale-gas fields in British Columbia, the produced gas contains 11% CO2. It would be relatively cheap to sequester this gas (much of the cost of CCS is the separation cost, which is already sunk in this case), but this has not been mandated by the provincial government.

It is noteworthy that currently it is very difficult to actually measure fracking contributions to methane and/or leaked natural gas. Several attempted studies in my old stomping grounds (Pennsylvania and New York states) have been quashed or unfunded due to industry and local resistance to on-site measurements. "Drive-by" measures show methane levels more than 3x regional averages - but on-site counts are simply not available.

"Walter Anthony and her colleagues estimate that subcap seeps (seeps of fossil, thermogenic methane through discontinuous permafrost) may be currently emitting as much as 2 Tg of methane per year. This compares to an estimated seepage of 3-4 Tg per year for the rest of the world from surface seeps (excepting mud volcanoes)."

Well, that certainly is disconcerting. Given that this rather enormous amount doesn't even take into account biological permafrost methane, one would think that it might just justify the IPCC including the permafrost carbon feedback in the AR5. Absolutely stunned me to learn that it was being left out

Not fun trying to measure CH4 emissions from coal mining either but its pretty easy to conclude that you have 100% loss of coal bed methane to atmosphere during the mining and processing. Before screaming too loudly about fracking I would like to some decent comparison of CO2e per GWh for coal versus shale gas.

The current emissions of subcap methane are small when compared to some other human and natural sources, perhaps contributing less than 1% of total emissions today. Where the subcap methane releases may become significant is in the transient phase of permafrost deterioration, as pent-up methane is released when the permafrost sealing layer thaws and becomes perforated. I'll speculate on this in part four.

scaddenp @11, some coal mine methane is extracted and used to generate power, or indeed, simply flared. While still lost to the atmosphere, it is as CO2 rather than CH4, and hence has a lower greenhouse impact.